Should Creationism Ever be a Firing Offense?

I have to agree with you, Hemant, it is not a good thing, unless he was pushing his beliefs to a level that it interfered with work. That said, I say that because his field of science is not linked to evolution in a major way. If he were a biologist, and his beliefs affected what he was studying, then he should not be in the position.

In my opinion as a former person in charge of hiring for my department, offensive or ignorant beliefs are not in and of themselves a non-hiring or firing offense. However, should someone decide to disregard workplace etiquitte or HR protocols and cause a hostile work environment for their coworkers due to their beliefs,  and refuses to cease, that is indeed a firing offense. I don’t know if that is what Coppedge did or not.

I don’t think beliefs should be considered in the hiring or firing of someone.

It sounds like he constantly hounded his co-workers though and THAT is what I would fire someone for.

As I understand it this guy was routinely pushing his religious views on his coworkers, as such he was causing problems at work, he was told multiple times to stop harassing his coworkers and he did not.  So he had it coming, and it wasn’t because he was a creationist, just that he was an asshole.

That being said, if I was hiring someone in any science based field and I found that they were a creationist I would be suspicious of their understanding of the scientific method and their grasp of reality.  Their work in the specific field would have to blow me away for me to seriously consider them.  If I hired someone without knowing that, and found out later, I would have to look at whether or not they were letting those beliefs affect their work.  

Now there are certain areas, microbiology perhaps (I’m not trained in these areas so I may be wrong), where I think a thorough understanding of evolution is necessary to move forward in the field, so firing them outright might be reasonable there.  After all, would you want someone who needs to understand how bacteria are evolving to get past vaccines working on new vaccines if they don’t believe that is happening?

Actually being a creationist is probably fireable, since it implies a level of incompetence at many of these fields. Ardently believing that you ARE a creationist, even though you really are not, probably should not be a fireable offense. To whit: http://lesswrong.com/lw/r/no_really_ive_deceived_myself/

Having been “let go” from a job by a creationist when, after being a top class employee, he found out I was gay I would say I would never base a hire or fire on the basis of beliefs but on the ability and willingness to do the job as required. If their beliefs get in the way of that then no job if not then job. If they were disruptive then they would be treated like any other disruptive person – challenged, then made them aware of what was expected of them in order to do the job and if they felt they could not comply or refused to comply then shown the door. I would never do to a creationist what that creationist did to me.

I don’t know about that.  If someone applied for a job and believed that Teddy Roosevelt was president, I’m pretty sure that they would have believed themselves out of a job.

A creationnist as a science class teacher? Totally firable.

Would I hire someone who believes in Creationism for a scientific position?  Hell, no.  What more evidence do you need that someone doesn’t have a scientific attitude to questions of reason and evidence?  That ipso facto makes him or her unsuitable for a scientific position.  

If that creationist has ANYTHING to do with Science, then… YES!!!!

 I would find it hard to believe that after 15 years, all of a sudden his beliefs would be an issue. Unless he made it one, which sounds more like is the case here.

I think age would be a factor making that decision. I could accept an older person that was brought up to believe it, if I didn’t think it would affect his work. But a younger person, with the level of information available now days. would have to be willingly ignorant to hold this belief. So no I think it would be a warning sign of someone exceptionally stubborn and inflexible. It would be someone who would have to be so ridged in their thinking that it would almost be impossible to mold them into the team.

What goes on between a person’s ears is nobody’s business but theirs. What goes on between a person’s legs is nobody’s business but theirs and their consenting adult partner’s.  What goes on between a person’s hands, meaning the work they do and how well they perform it, is definitely the business of their employer.

If Coppedge allowed his beliefs to affect his actual job performance, such as something weird like insisting that the speed of light is not a reliable constant (as some very silly Young Earth Creationists do to explain stars and galaxies farther than a few thousand light years) and as a result he screwed up the trajectory of Cassini, that would warrant his firing.

The issue of being a nuisance or an irritation to co-workers with his non job related ID nonsense is a more murky matter. In my opinion, social disharmony has to be so extreme that it interferes with other workers’ job performance to be justifiable cause for firing. If all they do is roll their eyes behind his back, that’s not enough to fire him.

The matter of hiring and promoting someone who holds views that are contrary to the science they will be using is also a murky matter, but I think the employer would have a little more ability to not hire or promote him/her if the employer could show a justifiable lack of  confidence that they would be able to perform reliable science because of those views.

If I somehow managed to figure out that they were a creationist before hiring them, I wouldn’t.  They’re probably doing something wrong if creationism comes up before they’re even employed.  

If he was really harassing his coworkers, then his being fired is legit, religious belief or no. It’s still harassment of other people. 

This was the first comparable sinario i thought of,and what Golfie says i agree with 100%.This man got to the position he was in  because he was brilliant at what he does, and that should be the first criteria for the job.However as with all working enviroments its important that people have basic social  protocols.Exactly how bad this man was is only hearsay from our perspective,was he rude or were others just offendable.People talking about their passion like men with sport and ladys with fashion can be a bore,but isnt a firable offence.

If the person is competent at their job and doesn’t use their beliefs to disrupt the workplace I wouldn’t have a problem with having him/her there.   

I”m a grad student in the Institute of Evolution and Ecology at the University of Oregon, so my position the the issue of evolution’s validity should be obvious.  While us grad students have no direct impact on the hiring of faculty, we do get a chance to talk to faculty about prospective hires.  I can say that, at least in this field, a creationist would simply not be hired to our institute.  It’s, strictly mathematically speaking, possible that a creationist could be hired by the Biology Department as a member of a different institute, but I would be shocked.  While this fact would probably be construed as “scientific dogmatism” by creationist and ID proponents, to us it’s the same as not hiring a faculty member who didn’t accept that DNA was the molecule that contained genetic information (epigenetics aside, yadda yadda), or that whales are mammals.  A faculty member who was a creationist would not be expected to be able to conduct rigorous and important biological research, and should not be hired.  

Now, at lower levels, the story is different.  There are plenty of areas of biology in which a creationist could work as a lab tech.  Again, I would be hesitant to hire them, and if they could keep their beliefs out of the lab, it would be possible, but there are so many people that apply for any position, unless they demonstrated themselves to be well above and beyond any other applicant, it would probably prevent them from being hired.

“Should Creationism Ever be a Firing Offense?”

Yes, unless the job is cleaning toilets.

darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com

I must say that I was very lucky having attended a catholic grade school and had a botanist with a Ph.D. as our science teacher 6th-8th grade. Although she was catholic herself, she taught evolution and,to my knowledge, was never reprimanded for it. I think she still teaches there! To this day I thank Mrs. Hogan for respecting us by showing us the facts and letting us figure it out for ourselves. If only every theist scientist was this reasonable, there would be less David Coppedge situations!

Coppedge wasn’t fired because of his creationism, if you believe JPL.

“Defense attorneys scoffed at the accusation that Coppedge was targeted
because of his beliefs. Due to budget cuts, including to the Cassini
project, more than 200 employees also lost their jobs.

Coppedge had also waved off suggestions to update his computer skills
and was saddled with a reputation for being “unwilling to listen and
always having to do things his way,” defense attorneys said in court
papers.

In fact, during closing arguments, Fox asked the judge to recall
Coppedge’s demeanor on the witness stand. He repeatedly wandered off
topic to discuss intelligent design.” (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jpl-trial-20120430,0,7534196.story)

I tend to believe JPL in this matter. Coppedge worked for JPL for over 15 years, and he never hid being a creationist. Why should it had become such a problem suddenly that it warranted his lay-off? That someone who doesn’t stay up-to-date with his workskills and is a bad team-player is layed-off together with 200 other employeees doesn’t indicate that the main reason for his dismissal was his creationism, IMO.

I was taught evolution by a creationist in school (here in the UK).  He started off by saying, “my personal belief is that God made all the plants and animals as it says in the Bible” and then went on to explain evolution fansaticallly well and utterly convincingly.  he was one of the best teachers I had and the person who I credit with me becoming a Biologist. 

As a moderately successful engineer who may be in a position of hiring some day; if I ever interview a candidate or have an employee who willingly ignores scientific evidence in order to substantiate a belief that is not based on evidence, I will not hire them and I will do what I can to have them no longer work for me.

In STEM fields, the ability to review evidence and make a decision based completely and ONLY on that evidence is important. A creationist is very clearly, to me, not capable of doing this. My view has nothing to do with religious affiliation and everything to do with the denial of facts.

This person can struggle with their belief and disbelief of factual data while under the umbrella of a different employer, but not on my watch.

He sounds like he’d be more comfortable working at Mr. Ham’s creationist “museum”. Gotta wonder how he ever got hired at NASA with faulty wiring in his cranium.

You know that Christian Right is going to jump all over this and say, “See?!? Good Christians are being singled out for their religion by the atheistic and agnostic scientific community. Why?!? Because they know we speak the truth!”

His attorney says he never evangelized or proselytized to his co-workers, yet he handed out information on creationism. There were also multiple harassment claims against him and he lost his “lead” status because of ongoing conflicts with co-workers. Icing on the cake, his job was getting cut anyway due to the budget.

How is this “solely because of his creationism” again? I don’t know. I only hope his defense doesn’t turn what should be a straightforward employment law care into Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District Part 2.

The court of public opinion has been heavily leaning in Coppedge’s corner mainly because the only side heard from has been Coppedge and the spinmiesters at the Discovery Institute.  It’s now in the judges hands but several things that have come out in the press is interesting:
1.  The Discovery Institute keep claiming that Coppedge was discriminated against for religious reasons, yet they keep claiming that their belief set isn’t religious.  Anyone else find that funny?
2.  He claims to have ‘discussed’ his religion with hundreds of fellow employees.  I don’t know about you, but hundreds sounds more like preaching that discussing.
3.  JPL has been noticeably silent.  When is the only time lawyers don’t want to be in the limelight?  Usually when they know they do not need it.  Another interesting data point.
4.  I find it also interesting that while being sued for his apparent demotion, they choose to fire him as part of a large layoff.  Now I don’t know about you, but lawyers aren’t stupid, well I doubt JPLs are, I can’t speak about Coppedge’s.  I mean anyone read about the Mt Vernon OH case of the fired school teacher?  He tried the religious discrimination and it’s failed him.  He was fired for failing to teach the subject he was hired to teach and the antics of his lawyer seems to irritate the judge there.
5.  He was employed there for over 14 years.  His Creationist leanings have been known for quite some time.  Why did things suddenly come to a head?  I doubt it was anything sudden, but a pattern of inappropriate behavior takes time, as do accumulated complaints.  If he had been canned the first time he mentioned it, he might have a leg to stand on, but 14 years?
Like I said a few things have caught my eye.  I will be surprised if the Judge sides with Coppedge.  If not, I bet he appeals over and over again. 

As long as they can do their job, and do it *competently* – which would require keeping their personal beliefs separate from the nature of their job – then I think it’s probably okay. It would be concerning if they went out of their way to make a big deal out of it, sure – but odds are, if they can’t do their job without bringing that up, they can’t keep their job function and their personal beliefs separate either.